The podcast discusses the Supreme Court's ruling on disqualifying Trump under the Fourteenth Amendment, leaving many questions unanswered. Experts analyze the implications, internal dynamics of the ruling, historical context, and challenges of enforcing Section Three. They also touch on protecting personal information online and the complexities of election law.

After months of mostly quiet, behind-the-scenes debate, both the House and Senate seem ready to move forward with reforming the Electoral Count Act, the 1887 statute governing how Congress counts electoral votes, whose various ambiguities played a central role in unsuccessful plans to turn the 2020 election results in favor of former President Trump. Experts are all but unanimous on the need to reform the law, and both proposals have at least some bipartisan support, including from Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell. But the path forward remains far from certain. To discuss what comes next, Lawfare senior editor Scott R. Anderson sat down with Ned Foley, a leading election law expert and professor at The Ohio State University's Moritz College of Law, and Genevieve Nadeau, a Counsel at the organization Protect Democracy who has been engaging on reform efforts. They discussed the similarities and differences between the House and Senate reform proposals, how they will strengthen our election process, and what work remains to be done. Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Join Derek Muller, a leading election law scholar from Notre Dame, Ned Foley, an expert on constitutional election law, and Matthew A. Seligman, a fellow at Stanford, as they dissect the complex landscape of U.S. presidential elections. They analyze the implications of close elections on public trust and discuss the intricacies of the election certification process. The trio also examines possible reforms, the impact of recent legal changes, and the challenges posed by election disputes, emphasizing the need for clarity and stability in democratic processes.

Legal scholars Ned Foley and Derek Muller join Lawfare Senior Editor Scott R. Anderson to discuss the implementation of Section 3 disqualification under the 14th Amendment. They explore the interpretation and application of Section 3, its relevance in disqualifying individuals involved in insurrection or rebellion, and the procedural hurdles in implementing disqualification. The podcast also delves into hypothetical scenarios related to disqualification of candidates, the role of presidential electors, and the disqualification of state officials under Section 3.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in what may be the biggest case of the term: Moore v. Harper. In that case, North Carolina’s state legislature is arguing that the state Supreme Court lacks the legal authority to review the heavily gerrymandered congressional districts it has enacted, on the grounds that the Constitution's elections clause gives that authority exclusively to the state legislatures—an argument often referred to as the independent state legislature doctrine, which many fear may undermine state law election protections around the country if taken up by the Court.To discuss, Lawfare senior editor Scott R. Anderson sat down on Twitter Spaces with Professor Ned Foley of The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law, and Professor Derek Muller of the University of Iowa College of Law. They discussed where the justices seem to be leaning, how they may resolve different aspects of the party's arguments, and what it all might mean for 2024.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.